Endorsing a new approach to endorsements

The unbroken string of Republican presidential candidates endorsed by the Chicago Tribune extends to 1872, according to the paper’s public editor. So when the Trib backed George W. Bush’s reelection, the development was dog-bites-man, pop-singer-

lip-synchs “live” performance – utterly unsurprising.

John Nance Gardner, who served under FDR, derided the vice presidency as “not worth a warm bucket of spit.” The same can be said for most newspaper presidential endorsements. But just as Dick Cheney and Al Gore elevated the veep slot above ceremonial status, papers can make their endorsements more meaningful by not giving an automatic nod to the candidate of their favored party.

By surprising readers with unexpected presidential picks, newspapers would have more impact on voters when they supported expected candidates the rest of the time. Publishers who refuse to endorse candidates from a different party end up shooting themselves in the feet. To use a different body part, no one takes knee-jerk endorsements seriously.

But if the Chicago Tribune had promoted even one Democrat for president in the 20th century – how about Woodrow Wilson over Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, or even Truman over Dewey in 1948? – readers wouldn’t laugh so loudly at this official statement: “The Tribune is not blindly or uncritically partisan. No political party should take its support for granted.”

It’s just as silly when Democratic papers never endorse Republicans. Who gives credence to the Louisville Courier-Journal’s pick of John Kerry when it has failed to endorse a Republican in its 136 years? The publisher might have arrived at the choice of Kerry after a fair, intellectually rigorous process, but held up against the paper’s history, the endorsement carries no weight.

Publishers traditionally exercise veto power over editorial boards that disagree with their picks, and I respect that, but simple logic suggests they’d better serve their long-term political interests by letting the troops win the argument once in a while.

Through Oct. 25, a surprising 36 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 were urging a vote for Kerry in 2004, according to Editor & Publisher. Four dailies that picked Gore in 2000 are recommending Bush this year. You can bet readers paid more attention to the presidential endorsements of those 40 papers this year.

Publishers who won’t spill ink on behalf of candidates from a different party have another good occasional option for gaining credibility: endorse no one. At least eight dailies that endorsed Bush in 2000 pointedly made no presidential pick for 2004.

At the very least, publishers should make the endorsement process transparent. If the editorial board was overruled, readers are entitled to know that. Then they can figure out for themselves what a publisher veto says about the quality of the officially endorsed candidate.

No sympathy

When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ran ads against attorney general candidate Deborah Senn, I called Don Barbieri’s campaign to see if the former chairman of the Spokane Regional Chamber wanted to distance himself from the sneak attack. But Stephen Barbieri, spokesman for the 5th District congressional candidate, declined to offer a single word in defense of his fellow Democrat.

Now the U.S. Chamber is unloading on Barbieri. The situation reminds me of the mini-essay Dear Abby used to reprint by the German pastor who never spoke up when the Nazis were taking away various groups of people, only to discover there was no one left to protect him when the goons started pounding on his door…